And that without it, I would not have been able to withstand what I did. And would not be who I am. It is truly a light, a way, a father, and a god to me. As stated in the religious text, it is our earthly link to Shiva. The good father, the god of animals and dance, the creator, destroyer, and preserver.
Then why do they come out so pretty and get me so high, even with such shitty (under $100 for 2 grows) growing conditions and being harvested early all the time?
that is some sorry looking bud . .. . . and shiva would not appreciate your disrespect of the plant . . .. cfls . . for shame
Their intent was to remove me from any place where I could freely practice my religion, to break into my home, and to steal my sacrament. It's applicable
There's something in there or I wouldn't have put it.
No, the YFZ case is regarding any GOVERNMENT entity illegally searching RELIGIOUS PEOPLES for acting strangely. EVEN when it comes to kids.
none of your reason will help shaggy he is delusional . . . . . . . he actaully thinks his growing skills shows respect for the plant that is medicine to most of us smokers . .. . . . the spear point of an agenda to try and not take responsibility for his actions
Yeah, but not the guy talking shit repeatedly, who can hardly put any detail into a post. He's bringing us forward in STRIDES right?
Shaggy. You believe that was their intent. They don't. If you're going to allege that that was their intent, you have to be able to prove it. Otherwise, it's just your word against theirs.Their intent was to remove me from any place where I could freely practice my religion, to break into my home, and to steal my sacrament. It's applicable
1. The case may have specified experience, but the actual quote from the judge who made the ruling in words did not. He just said the "[They] cannot be held to...something" I don't remember the exact words, but it just said "About their faith" not "About experiences regarding their faith."
The ruling was that churches do not have to name a supreme being to receive tax exemption status as a church.
your a con man . . . .no one in any court will fall for your story . . . .. .Yeah, but not the guy talking shit repeatedly, who can hardly put any detail into a post. He's bringing us forward in STRIDES right?
You cannot deny that they intended to ARREST (take me somewhere) for the assumption that I was using/possessing my sacrament.
Then that's it. Just read the whole thing instead of paraphrasing in your mind. I bet the wording was in our favor.
OK but this case, this ruling, is just an overturn of conviction and granting a new trial based on the fact that it shouldn't be up to a jury whether or not someone is acting in good faith according to their religion. In other words, you can't prove whether or not someone actually believes they talk to Shiva. Or Buddah. Or Satan. The judge said "The religious views espoused by respondents might seem incredible, if not preposterous, to most people. But if those doctrines are subject to trial before a jury charged with finding their truth or falsity, then the same can be done with the religious beliefs of any sect. When the triers of fact undertake that task, they enter a forbidden domain. The First Amendment does not select any one group or any one type of religion for preferred treatment. It puts them all in that position." All this says is that no one can ask the jury to determine whether or not you actually believe what you're saying about your religion.
Shaggy, that has nothing to do with your case at all. It's a tax exemption status case. That church can still be tax exempt and now, because of that case, so can other churches who choose not to name a specific deity.
Ok then where is our dispute?